Sarah Palin: Establishment is trying to “crucify” Newt Gingrich

posted at 2:20 pm on January 27, 2012 by Tina Korbe

In an interview with Fox Business Network’s John Stossel yesterday, Sarah Palin said the establishment is trying to “crucify” Newt Gingrich.

Palin suggests that a double standard exists — that even conservative media members will criticize Gingrich, but ignore the flaws of Mitt Romney.

Palin is far from alone in this opinion. Whatever suspicions conservatives had that much of the media is in the tank for Mitt Romney were confirmed yesterday by Matt Drudge’s multiple-link assault on Newt Gingrich (which, to the detriment of my standing with some HA commenters, I found interesting and compelling enough to post about here). A sampling of the ire that the Drudge attack drew:

“Cherry-picked quotes, biased headlines and hyperlinks to Newt-hating op-eds in order to patch together an ugly and distorted mosaic of the former House speaker is not journalism,” Matt Barber, a blogger, wrote in a post titled “The Drudge Distort.” He continued, “It’s mercenary-style political prostitution.”

Another blog post declared Thursday to be “Bloody Thursday the Day the Drudge Report Sold Out.”

The writer said, “I have read the Drudge Report daily ever since he broke the Lewinsky story. I have NEVER seen him attack anyone with the volume of coverage and with the venom that he has attacked this Gingrich fellow.”

The blog post concluded, “On this Thursday, this quite bloody Thursday, I can only say, et tu Matt.” …

Rush Limbaugh, on his radio show on Thursday, also took note of the headlines, calling it a “coordinated” effort to smear Mr. Gingrich.

“Now, when I saw all it is stuff — and obviously it’s a coordinated document dump here, opposition research dump. It’s obviously coordinated,” said Mr. Limbaugh, who has not been a fan of Mr. Romney’s in the past.

On this subject, I’d like to offer this disclaimer: I know I’ve written more negative posts about Newt Gingrich than about Mitt Romney — but I’ve done it because I assumed the flaws in Romney’s record were more well-known — at least to my generation. We weren’t old enough to be attuned to politics during Gingrich’s speakership, but we did encounter Romney in the first GOP presidential primary in which we were eligible to vote.

The rest of the primaries promise to be this way — messy and vicious in all directions and with sensitivities also running high in all directions. At such a time, it’s helpful to remember what the end goal is. From my perspective, the end goal is to elect a president who would at least sign an Obamacare repeal bill, who will reduce spending across the board and who will actually move the ball forward on entitlement reform. Everybody probably has a different list of legislative and executive priorities — but there’s also probably a lot of overlap. What’s most important to you in a president?

Every candidate has his day in the sun and every candidate gets dumped on. Romney has had more than his fair share of negative articles. Instead of whining, Gingrich and his supporters should be pleased that he’s garnering so much attention. And if he is truly fit to be POTUS then he should be able to answer these attacks and turn it into positive coverage.

I have a feeling we’re just going to get more whining. Seems to be his latest M.O.

This is really making me doubt Palin; I’ve donated plenty to her PAC before, but I’m not sure if I will in the future.

If Mrs. Palin is truly a conservative—a small-government conservative—how can she defend Gingrich as a fellow conservative? Did it not occur to her that many conservatives attack Gingrich (in a way they haven’t attacked Santorum or others) because maybe Gingrich is not a conservative?

From my perspective, the end goal is to elect a president who would at least sign an Obamacare repeal bill, who will reduce spending across the board and who will actually move the ball forward on entitlement reform.

I am starting to feel that it really doesn’t matter what I think or want. Both sides of the political spectrum seem more concerned with doing end zone dances against their political rivals than actually fixing the problems we have. Because it doesn’t matter that they do, as long as its “your guy” doing it.

On this subject, I’d like to offer this disclaimer: I know I’ve written more negative posts about Newt Gingrich than about Mitt Romney — but I’ve done it because I assumed the flaws in Romney’s record were more well-known — at least to my generation. We weren’t old enough to be attuned to politics during Gingrich’s speakership, but we did encounter Romney in the first GOP presidential primary in which we were eligible to vote.

And therein lies the problem – people excusing their journalistic contributions on the basis of ‘assumptions.’ Newt’s flaws are many, but the idea that we’re just going to say, ‘ohh well, we all know what’s wrong with Romney, no point in rehashing any of that’ is simply ridiculous.

At the end of the day, we have two very flawed candidates. However, one has done more to bring Republicans into modernity than arguably any other Republican leader in modern history. The other guy, around the same time, was claiming his views to be progressive.

Newt is a liberal wolf in conservative sheep’s clothing, and he would get obliterated against Obama and the billion-dollar machine. Mitt is also a weak candidate, but at least Mittens can pull in the independents, while Newt is a major turnoff to almost everyone not in the base of the GOP. Hell, even a large portion of the conservative base is also turned-off by Newt.

From my perspective, the end goal is to elect a president who would at least sign an Obamacare repeal bill, who will reduce spending across the board and who will actually move the ball forward on entitlement reform.

On this subject, I’d like to offer this disclaimer: I know I’ve written more negative posts about Newt Gingrich than about Mitt Romney — but I’ve done it because I assumed the flaws in Romney’s record were more well-known — at least to my generation.

On this subject, I’d like to offer this disclaimer: I know I’ve written more negative posts about Newt Gingrich than about Mitt Romney — but I’ve done it because I assumed the flaws in Romney’s record were more well-known — at least to my generation. We weren’t old enough to be attuned to politics during Gingrich’s speakership, but we did encounter Romney in the first GOP presidential primary in which we were eligible to vote.

A lot of his flip-flops are known, but I don’t believe for one second a majority of the base knows just how similar Romneycare is to Obamacare. Or how Romney’s advisers actually met with the Obama Administration(and in one meeting even Obama himself) to help them craft their health care law. Now part of that is the fault of the other GOP candidates. With the exception of Santorum in recent debates, none of them have gone after Romney on this and they have no one to blame but themselves. But as to the main point about his negatives being well-known amongst primary voters, I respectfully disagree.

I didn’t realize that it “poor ole Newt week”. He is always the victim. Having lived in his congressional district for most of his US House career, I have continually observed that he always stirs things up and then somehow manages to become the victim.

Yes. Because the (R-Establishment) made Gingrich cheat on his first two wives. And the (R-Establishment) made Gingrich sit on the couch with Pelosi…and support global warming…and Cap and Trade. And the (R-Establishment) gave him brilliant ideas about sex in space, moon colonies, etc. Why, if it weren’t for that pesky “Establishment”, Gingrich would be the MODEL of all things conservative and true.

I haven’t seen so many knives, kitchen sinks, & political blow darts thrown at a candidate in a Presidential primary. Newt had momentum, and its almost impossible to maintain that after all the mortars Newt took over a 5 day period. Newts debate performance didn’t help him either. He was terrible in the florida debates.

The most important thing in a president to me is one who would speak openly and honestly about the the real problems that confront us, and motivate the country towards realistic approaches to solving them.

In other words, stop with the “Social Security is fine, Welfare just needs to be tweaked, the borders are basically secure” nonsense. We need a president who says, “We cannot accept the status quo, nor can we continue to fund failure; we need responsible change, and we as Americans need to hold our government accountable.”

As a first step, I would like to see the President call for a complete and total end to Baseline Budgeting, so that “reductions in the rate of growth” are actually painted as “more growth” and not “cuts.”

In short, we just need to start dealing with problems openly and with truthful language. As long as we continue to use “politispeak” then we will make no progress.

Palin’s right, of course. I’m not sure how useful it is to take up air time with this theme — at least if it’s couched in these terms — but there’s no question that Newt is under attack from the GOP leadership and much of the conservative opinion media.

Sure, many attacks on him have a valid basis. And he’s been playing cheap politics as much as Romney has.

But the important thing about the “establishment” attacks on Gingrich is that they are so reflexive, irritable, and shrill. The voter have been sending the strongest possible signal that they will not simply accept a Romney coronation, with all its implications about abandoning the fight for constitutionalism and liberty — and the leadership is simply ignoring them. Its determination to make the decision “about” Gingrich’s flaws is small-minded and defensive.

On this subject, I’d like to offer this disclaimer: I know I’ve written more negative posts about Newt Gingrich than about Mitt Romney — but I’ve done it because I assumed the flaws in Romney’s record were more well-known — at least to my generation.

Yes. Because the (R-Establishment) made Gingrich cheat on his first two wives. And the (R-Establishment) made Gingrich sit on the couch with Pelosi…and support global warming…and Cap and Trade. And the (R-Establishment) gave him brilliant ideas about sex in space, moon colonies, etc. Why, if it weren’t for that pesky “Establishment”, Gingrich would be the MODEL of all things conservative and true.

LiquidH2O on January 27, 2012 at 2:29 PM

Well the Republican establishment is apparently powerful enough to pick our nominee every four years by rigging a 50 state primary election so is it so hard to believe they also have the power to make Newt cheat on his wives and sit on the couch with Pelosi?

Sorry Tina…your protests do not pass the smell test. Much of Romney’s hsitory is very local to MA so I doubt that Hot Air readers of any age can be assumed to know it all. Also, there was all that time at Bain, the particulars of which are not common knowledge…but SHOULD be for someone looking to hold the highest office in the land. Just because Bain is a capitalist enterprise does not mean it should not be thoroughly investigated. Obama’s people certainly will leave no stone unturned. I am a VERY long-term reader…even from when Ed was “Captain”…andI have been disgusted with Hot Air’s coverage of the GOP primary and their Romney cheerleading. The minute a good alternate site comes to my attention…I am gone.

I’m no fan of Ann Coulter, but her article about the “establishment” is freaking hilarious. Newt (and princess Palin) call anyone not on his side the establishment and can’t imagine any reason for anyone not adoring them, so they must be establishment watever that means.

So, what about the obvious anti-Romney tone at HotAir? What about Fox News? Everyone has a voice on the Internet–and that is the reality. Was any of the stuff untrue? Things are always taken out of context and spun so people can see it their way.

Obviously Sarah Palin has all but endorsed Gingrich. I doubt she would defend Romney if such dirt was on Romney’s side.

People I talk to all hate Newt mostly because he is a freaking career politician. Not withstanding his personal life, he’s also had major ethical problems in the past. People don’t want him.

If Palin is so anti-establishment, why did she run for VP ? Isn’t is the second most “establishment” post in the US ?

runner on January 27, 2012 at 2:26 PM

No, you’re a little confused. Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan were anti-establishment, as is Palin.

Their election to the Presidency or Vice Presidency wouldn’t necessarily change that — it certainly didn’t for Reagan. But no doubt the Beltway Bubble has an influence on many who were anti-establishment prior to arriving (in particular, lots of so-called conservative talking heads and editorial opinion writers).

I need to know that what they say they will do is in fact what they will do.

I don’t believe Romney will repeal ObamaCare. Nor does Mark Levin. Nor do many of us. But somehow it wasn’t until last night that a candidate, in this case, Santorum, ripped Romney, and now I read in the headlines that he’s heading home to do his taxes.

WTH?

I hope that HA doesn’t become an echo chamber for the media’s spin. It should instead, or I hope, be a mechanism for getting through the crap dished to us. Granted there’s a lot of that lately, but I’d rather be able to trust what I read here as true (and not all of the Newt stuff was verifiable, as Limbaugh and Levin and others showed).

Newt shot himself plenty, but if what I read here is just gossip of the day, I’ll take it as such.

at least to my generation. We weren’t old enough to be attuned to politics during Gingrich’s speakership, but we did encounter Romney in the first GOP presidential primary in which we were eligible to vote.

I’m no fan of Ann Coulter, but her article about the “establishment” is freaking hilarious. Newt (and princess Palin) call anyone not on his side the establishment and can’t imagine any reason for anyone not adoring them, so they must be establishment watever that means.

hanzblinx on January 27, 2012 at 2:34 PM

Well “RINO” have been overused and diluted to the point it means “anyone with an ‘R’ next to their name with whom I disagree on some issues” so now they have to use “establishment” until they come up with a new word to beat to death.

Tina, why don’t you enunciate those well known flaws of Romney for us? I would pay special attention to his anti 2nd amendment stance or how about the fact he opposed what Reagan stood for and refused to back the contract with America. Why not mention he appointed liberal judges. Which he will do again if he wins in November, which is a serious doubt. You idiots seem to think Romney is the best choice. Why? He was a one term governor who could not win reelection, did not win a senate seat and became a legal pirate. They did not invest in Staples to create jobs. It was always about making money for a few. Just exactly what the Obama admin wants to run against. Tina you are going to have to run and hide after the GOP loses this election. People like me will hound you at what ever endeavor you choose after you lose you credibity on this one. Maybe there is a job for you at the Daily Kos.

If the 160+ comment post in Headlines tells us anything, it’s that the ABR fervor has a lot more to do with cranky Palinistas (aka True Conservatives) than any real support for Newt. Not that it was ever really a secret.

Sarah Palin’s endorsement is the kiss of death.
She saved Lisa Murkowski’s political career.
She is now helping President Romney buy making it clear that the stupid people support fat man.
THANKS SARAH!!!

BTW, sarah, watch your children. Try to have at least ONE kid get married without a bun in the oven.
Jailbreak on January 27, 2012 at 2:26 PM

Are you kidding with this crap??? Her endorsement is the kiss of death?? Tell that to Nikki Halley, Susanna Martinez and all the others that beg for it. And who are you supporting in this primary, GENIUS?? And attacks about her kids?? REALLY?? How 2008 of you!

Sarah Palin is on the side of conservatives. Mitt Romney is a lying liberal republican that was a 2005 Top 10 RINO in the only office he ever held. Sarah Palin is standing on principles. I will take Newt Gingrich over a lying liberal Mitt Romney anyday.

Due to the diligence of one Chris Scheve of a group called Aqua Terra Strategies in Washington, Mr. Abrams has been caught red-handed in lending himself to this attempted Romney hit job.

Mr. Scheve, you see, is himself a former foreign policy aide to none other than Speaker Newt Gingrich in his days as Speaker. While now out on his own and not working for Gingrich, Scheve is considerably conversant with the Gingrich foreign policy record.

Uh-oh.

That’s right. Mr. Scheve, incensed at what he felt was a deliberate misrepresentation of his old boss by Abrams and the Romney forces, specifically of Gingrich’s long ago March 21, 1986 “Special Order” speech on the floor of the House, and aware “that most of his [Abrams’] comments had to have been selectively taken from the special order” — Scheve started digging. Since the Congressional Record for 1986 was difficult to obtain electronically, Scheve trekked to the George Mason Library to physically track down the March 21, 1986 edition of the Congressional Record. Locating it, copying and scanning, he was kind enough to send to me.

So now I’ve read the Gingrich speech that is the source of all the hoopla. All seven, fine print pages worth of it exactly as it appeared in its original form.

I can only say that what Elliott Abrams wrote in NRO about Newt Gingrich based on this long ago speech is not worthy of Elliott Abrams.

Specifically, Abrams implies that Newt Gingrich was spewing mindless vitriol about Reagan on the House floor. Not only not so, it was quite to the contrary. Of President Reagan, Gingrich says:

MORE AT THE LINK! Including this:

In short, time after time after, Newt Gingrich — true to form — is there on the floor of the House relentlessly praising and crediting Ronald Reagan. Is it any wonder that years later Nancy Reagan would speak so publicly and warmly about “Ronnie” passing the conservative torch to Newt? Is there any wonder that Michael Reagan has stepped into the middle of this current brawl to endorse Newt?

Sorry Tina, you and many of the outlets are ignoring stories that rebutt the negative headlines on Gingrich. All day yesterday, virtually all the outlets ran only negative headlines about Newt–just before a crucial debate. How coincidental of you all. Now, you may claim innocence, but one would have to be blind and dumb not to see what was going on and yet, you continued the pile-on.

Today, Jeffrey Lord at the American Spectator with the help of one of Newt’s aides from the 1980s uncovered the actual floor speech that Eliot Abrams used to sucker punch Newt. Turns out, Abrams selectively picked quotes out of a 7 page speech to make it look like Newt had no respect for Reagan. Complete B.S. What I would like to know is when NRO will retract and apologize and when HotAir and other outlets will post Lord’s story? Unfortunately, the damage has been done to Newt. Last night he looked beaten and tired. It is hard when you are a mouse against a massive political machine.

I HATE Romney’s dirty politics and will NEVER vote for him. This is a complete 180 for one who supported him in 2008. I’ve seen what he has done and is doing in two campaigns now, and I have more respect for myself than to vote for someone who engages in that kind of smear politics. When you have the presidential candidates in 2 election cycles complaining about Romney’s dirty tactics (Huckabee, Guliani, McCain, Thompson, Gingrich, Santorum) then you know there is truth to it.

This primary is exactly like the one with Obama and Clinton – where the media and the Washington and Wall Street insiders were totally in the tank for Obama and Clinton didn’t stand a chance. Look where it got us. History truly does repeat itself.

Ms Palin, you have my respect, but on this issue I believe you are flat out wrong. You yourself said that the nomination process should have continued to vet the candidates, and this is all part and parcel of the vetting process.

Past statements, votes, positions, irregular behaviors are all brought up, fair or not. If the vetting process paints a picture that voters just cannot ignore, then a candidate can and should lose support.

Newt Gingrich said it himself back in December. If you cannot withstand a few weeks worth of attacks during the primary, then you probably ought not be president.

Only in this case, he cannot even stand up to a few days worth of attacks. So what makes you think this man should be President, exactly?

Miller beat Murkowski in a primary that was supposed to be barely contested. Miller won ONLY because of Palin’s endorsement. No one with a shred of honesty thinks that Miller would have won that primary without Palin. NO ONE. So how did Palin’s endorsement save Murkowsky? This will be the first time I use this word referring o a particular commenter so let me clear my through.
here goes..
You are a Troll

Sarah Palin is on the side of conservatives. Mitt Romney is a lying liberal republican that was a 2005 Top 10 RINO in the only office he ever held. Sarah Palin is standing on principles. I will take Newt Gingrich over a lying liberal Mitt Romney anyday.

I’d at least have some respect for them if they threw in with Santorum – an actual conservative. But, I’m supposed to listen to Newt attack Romney with the Axelrod playbook and believe them when they tell me that Newt is the real conservative? I can’t believe they would insult their audiences like that. They can go F themselves.

If Palin is so anti-establishment, why did she run for VP ? Isn’t is the second most “establishment” post in the US ?

runner on January 27, 2012 at 2:26 PM

She was selected and accepted the VP position on the Republican ticket. She was a Republican governor. She is a Republican, who believes in Republican/conservative principles. She isn’t an “insider” but she is still a Republican. Why wouldn’t she like to advance her beliefs and ideals on a larger stage?

From my perspective, the end goal is to elect a president who would at least sign an Obamacare repeal bill, who will reduce spending across the board and who will actually move the ball forward on entitlement reform

Nothing to get angry about, right? Mitt has no intention of killing Romneycare2.0

Here’s a few thoughts:
1) Newts is the smartest guy on the stage during a debate…& he knows it. I like him , but he is, at times, an arrogant, smug, disingenous hyporite.
2) He should stop attacking Romney for being a millionaire – HE is TOO.
3) He should stop attacking Romney over his portfolio having stock in Fannie/Freddie, especially since HE took a direct PAYCHECK from Freddie Mac…which ws probably paid for in Bailout funds.

How about BOTH candidates SHUT UP attacking each other about what the other has done wrong/bad and simply tell the American people what THEY would to to be a better President than the the current nimrod?!

There is more than enough to discuss about this current President, from his outright violations of the Constitution and laws to a War Crime (using our military to attack another nation’s leader when ‘not at war’ with that nation)! Obama, not each other , is our ‘enemy.

On this subject, I’d like to offer this disclaimer: I know I’ve written more negative posts about Newt Gingrich than about Mitt Romney — but I’ve done it because I assumed the flaws in Romney’s record were more well-known — at least to my generation. We weren’t old enough to be attuned to politics during Gingrich’s speakership, but we did encounter Romney in the first GOP presidential primary in which we were eligible to vote.

Um, Tina, that is the most incredibly lame excuse. I can’t believe you expect to be believed on it.

Bring out Romney’s gubernatorial record–don’t just “assume” people know about it.

And if you weren’t attuned to politics during Gingrich’s speakership, then do some background research on what was going on in the 1990s and where the feuds were and who the players were.

Are you kidding with this crap??? Her endorsement is the kiss of death?? Tell that to Nikki Halley, Susanna Martinez and all the others that beg for it. And who are you supporting in this primary, GENIUS?? And attacks about her kids?? REALLY?? How 2008 of you!